![Show Menu](styles/mobile-menu.png)
![Page Background](./../common/page-substrates/page0041.jpg)
JCPSLP
Volume 14, Number 2 2012
95
Research update
(From the top)
Jeff Sigafoos,
Dean Sutherland,
Larah van der
Meer, Debora
Kagohara, and
Donna Achmadi
as a function of the teaching (intervention) program. This
finding suggests that our teaching methods were largely
successful. For the remaining children, who have yet to
reach the learning (or acquisition) criterion, we intend to
provide more intensive intervention.
•
For the 17 children who have so far reached the learning
(or acquisition) criterion of 80% correct, we found that
the speed of learning varied across the three methods of
communication. Specifically, SGD use was learned the
fastest (i.e., in the fewest mean number of teaching trials
on average), followed by PECS and manual sign (see
Figure 1). This finding suggests that SGDs may be an
easier method of communication for children with autism
to learn or an easier AAC system to teach.
T
here is general consensus that children with autism
who do not develop speech should be taught to use
augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)
(Mirenda & Iacono, 2009). AAC options include manual
signs, picture-exchange communication, and electronic
speech-generating devices (SGDs). There is considerable
debate, but little research, regarding which of these three
options is best suited to children with autism. Comparative
studies are few and have not compared the full range of
AAC options. The few studies that do exist have revealed
only small differences in terms of how quickly some children
can learn to use these different systems (Mirenda, 2003;
Sigafoos, O’Reilly, Schlosser, & Lancioni, 2007); However,
the speed of acquisition of AAC systems has also been
surprisingly quick in these studies, suggesting that the
participants were relatively easy to teach. Overall, the
limited data on this issue to date, suggest that while rate of
acquisition may vary for different AAC systems, there may
be other variables to consider, such as a child’s preference
for using different AAC options.
Pilot data indicate that individuals with autism and
other developmental disabilities often show idiosyncratic
preferences for using particular AAC options (e.g., Sigafoos
et al., 2009). This raises the intriguing possibility that
a child’s preference for using one type of AAC option
over others might be an important independent variable
that could significantly affect progress in learning to
communicate. Indeed, children may be able to “self-
determine” the best and most effective AAC option.
Our current research project is comparing three methods
of communication for children with autism who have
very limited spoken language (i.e., less than 10 single
words). The three methods are 1) manual signs, 2) picture
exchange communication system (PECS), and 3) electronic
speech-generating devices (SGDs – iPods®/ iPads®). The
first of two studies is currently underway and is comparing
these three methods of communication to answer the
following questions:
1. Do children with autism learn to use one method of
communication faster than the other two?
2. Do children with autism show a preference for using
manual signs v. picture-exchange v. speech-generating
devices?
3. Can such preferences be identified during the teaching
(intervention) process?
4. Are preferences for different AAC options stable over time?
5. Does preference influence how quickly and efficiently
children learn?
6. Does preference influence the extent to which children
continue to use their newly acquired communication
skills after the intervention has ended?
The key findings to date are:
•
Seventeen out of 21 children successfully learnt to make
requests (e.g., “I want more.” “I want to play with a toy.”)
Communication intervention
for children with autism
Jeff Sigafoos, Dean Sutherland, Larah van der Meer, Debora Kagohara, and Donna Achmadi
Figure 1. Mean number of teaching trials per AAC option to reach
criterion
•
The 17 children who have so far reached the learning
(or acquisition) criterion have also participated in the
preference assessment phase of Study 1. As part of
this assessment, each of these 17 children received
structured opportunities to choose which of the three
communication methods they would like to use to make
requests. The percentage of opportunities that each
option was selected served as a measure of relative
preference. On average, as shown in Figure 2, the SGD
was chosen 50% of the time, followed by PECS (20%),
and manual sign (11%). This finding suggests that the
SGD is preferred over the other two methods. However,
on 20% of the assessment opportunities that have so
far been conducted, children did not make a choice.
We are not yet sure how to interpret these “no-choice”
responses. In addition, while children’s preferences for
different communication methods appeared consistent
during the intervention stage of Study 1, it remains
unclear how stable these preferences will be over time,
hence the need for follow-up in 2012.
•
Comparing Figures 1 and 2 suggests that children
showed more rapid learning with the most preferred
12
22
18
SGD
Sign
PECS
25
20
15
10
5
0